Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Anju Devi vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp &Anr; on 30 January, 2017
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3383 / 2010
Smt. Anju Devi, aged about 28 years, wife of Shahid Bansi Lal
Luhach, resident of Village Bhainpura, Post Thikariya Khurd, Tehsil
Nava City, District Nagaur at present residing c/o Shri Man Mohan
Choudhary, Plot No. 203, Karni Palace Road, Pawanputra G Colony,
Panchyawala (Vaishali Nagar), Jaipur
Petitioner
Versus
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Udaipur Retail Region,
50, Saheli Nagar, New Polo Ground, Udaipur-313 001
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd., Udaipur Retail Region, 50, Saheli Nagar, New
Polo Ground, Udaipur-313001
Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Verma & Mr. Pratyush Raj _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Judgment 30/01/2017 By this writ petition, a direction is sought for allotment of retail outlet dealership at NH-116 RHS from Tonk to Sawaimadhopur Road.
Learned counsel submits that petitioner applied for retail outlet dealership in pursuance of advertisement issued by the respondents. The application was made in the category of widow of ex-service personnel. She was the only applicant yet retail outlet dealership has been denied thus present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner was exempted from assessment towards capability to provide infrastructure and facility apart from capability to arrange finance. As per terms of advertisement, she 2 was not required to possess minimum qualification as exemption to possess minimum qualification was also given. For the remaining heads, the petitioner has secured more than 50% marks thus should have been allotted retail outlet dealership. A direction may accordingly be given to this effect.
Learned counsel for respondents has contested the petition. It is submitted that petitioner's case was considered in the category for which application was submitted. She is a widow but not of ex-service personnel, who died in a war so as to call as war widow. The petitioner's husband died in militancy operation. The case of the petitioner was considered in the category of widow where capability for infrastructure as well as finance is not required to be assessed. The petitioner's case was considered on other heads. She could secure only 15 marks out of 40. The petitioner is not in possession of that educational qualification which could have secured marks out of 15. The marks of the petitioner was assessed on other heads also.
The minimum qualification is provided but one is made ineligible if falling in the category of widow and other categories. It does not mean that marks required on it need not be allocated. A reference of statement in the form of table has been given wherein marks on different heads are allocated. The petitioner's case was considered in the category of "corpus fund locations individuals". The marks towards education exist and accordingly her case was considered. The petitioner failed to secure minimum 50% marks to become eligible for allotment of retail outlet dealership.
3
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner is a widow and applied for retail outlet at Tonk-Sawaimadhopur road. Her case was considered as per guidelines. Being widow, she was considered in the category of "corpus fund locations individuals". Thirty five marks provided towards capability of infrastructure and 25% marks for capability of finance are not considered for the widow and other falling in that category. The assessment was made taking into consideration the education, business, generation, age, etc. Total 40 marks are provided therein and petitioner has secured only 15 marks. The norms for evaluating the candidates given in the guidelines is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"16. Norms for evaluating the candidates:
(a) The candidates will be assessed under the following parameters and in case one or more of the evaluation parameter is not applicable for any section of applicant or category of dealerships as listed below, the evaluation will be done excluding those marks and evaluating them only on the applicable marks. The maximum marks on which various categories of applicants will be evaluated as under:
Dealership Category Individual/ Corpus Fund Corpus Fund Non-Individual Evaluation Partnership Locations- Locations- entities i.e. Parameters Individuals Societies Corporate House Organised Bodies ✓ Societies, Charitable Trust Land 35 NA NA 35 Finance 25 NA NA 25 Education 15 15 NA NA Business 10 10 25* 25* Generation Age 4 4 4@ 4@ 4 Experience 4 4 4^ 4^ Business Ability 5 5 7 7 Personality 2 2 NA NA Max. Marks 100 40 40 100 The petitioner has obtained 15 marks out of 40. It is less than 50% of marks thus petitioner remained ineligible for allotment of retail outlet dealership.
I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents as the petitioner could not secure required marks. The plea regarding exemption of education is not correct rather relaxation has been given for possession of minimum qualifying marks required for retail outlet dealership. It does not mean that assessment towards education and allocation of marks is not to be made. The candidate not in possession of required educational qualification is not made eligible but while making assessment of the candidature, allocation of marks towards education are provided and have been taken into consideration, as per the guidelines. Hence, it is incorrect to say that even marks towards education should not have been counted.
In view of discussion made above, writ petition having no merit, is dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI)J. FRBOHRA